BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 283/2005 Filed on 02/08/2005

Dated: 16..11..2009

Complainant:

S. Kavirajan, M-55, Kalpakanagar, Chackai, Pettah P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. Paul George, Customer Care Executive, Reliance India Phone (Reliance Webworld), M.G Road, Near Overbridge, Thiruvananthapuram.

Addl. 2^nd opposite party:

2. The Managing Director, Reliance Infocom Services, EOI, Reliance Greens Village MOTIKHAVDI, P.O., DIG VIJAYGRAM, Distt: JAMNAGAR – 361140, Gujarat.

(By Adv. N. Padmini)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 03..03..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 16..10..2009, the Forum on 16..11..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant availed a telephone connection from the opposite parties under the “Plan 500”, that after availing the connection from the opposite parties the said telephone was dead as the tower of the opposite parties was out of order, that on 28/1/2005 complainant voluntarily transferred to the “Plan 290”, that even after several months of the said transfer the bill issued to him was the same as that of the old one by the opposite parties under the earlier plan, and that opposite parties did not rectify the anomalies in the bill even after repeated requests by the complainant. It is submitted that from 19/2/2005 to 18/3/2005 complainant availed an internet connection of limited period from the opposite parties with the monthly rent of Rs.650/-, that, for that opposite parties issued him a bill of Rs.4,392/-, that complainant informed his inability to pay such a huge amount to opposite parties and on the basis of the request of the complainant, opposite parties allowed him a discount of 20%. It is submitted that complainant remitted the remaining amount of Rs. 3,515/- to opposite parties on 25/5/2005, that opposite parties ought to have disconnected his connection if he has exceeded the limits prescribed or they could have shifted the connection to monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- plan. Opposite parties have issued him a bill for the unused internet. This would amount to deficiency in service. Inspite of this opposite parties issued him two new bills for Rs.855.82/- and Rs.1,467.74/- which he is not liable to pay. On 3/6/2005 he remitted Rs.660/- with opposite parties. Even after paying the amount opposite parties purposefully disconnected his telephone connection. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to take away their telephone equipment and repay the excess amount collected from him by way of unused monthly charges and pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that complainant had taken the FWPO2 plan which required payment of Rs.500/- per month, and that the complainant opted for the scheme from 21/01/2004. The averment that due to the defect in the tower the phone was not working for 20 days is sheer untruth and hence denied. The statement dated 16/2/2004 for the period from 22/01/2004 to 15/02/2004 will bring the true facts to light. The complainant has made calls for a total amount of Rs. 170.50/- from 24/01/2004 to 14/02/2004. The averment that he had changed to Rs.290/- plan from 28/01/2005 is totally false and hence denied, that he was all along in the Rs.500/- plan and he got changed to 290 data plan from 19/02/2005. The 290 data plan is taken for getting the facilities of R.Connect (internet facilities), that the said 290 data plan give the customer 3 options – Rs. 650/- monthly plan, Rs. 950/- monthly plan and Rs.1,500/- platinum plan. If the customer opts for any of these optional plans then the customer can avail the internet facility but need not pay Rs.290/- monthly rental. The complainant had used 1453 MB units of internet facility. As per the complainant's plan he was given 914 MB units free, the balance 539 units are charged at the rate of Rs.5/- per unit. Hence total amount of 539 units at Rs. 5/- per unit came to Rs. 2,695/-. the rental for the period from 19/2/2005 to 15/3/2005 came to Rs.580.36 (ie.he was in the option 650 monthly charges), the rental for the 4 days prior to that was in the 500/- plan and hence came to Rs.31.07. The call charges for the period came to Rs. 499.20/-, that the messages charges came to Rs. 3/-, that the R connect usage charge came to Rs.197.75/-, that the total of this was Rs.4,392.67/-, that as on 21/4/2005 the complainant owed a total amount of Rs.5,516.88/-, on 25/05/2005 he made a payment of Rs.3,515/- and on 3/06/2005 another payment of Rs.660/- was made. Even then as on 3/06/2005 an amount of Rs.1,986.55 was due from him. For non-payment of dues the telephone was automatically disconnected from 21/04/2005 to 20/05/2005. His statement that his phone was disconnected for 3 to 4 months are false. The complainant opted for the 1500 platinum plan from 20/05/2005 where he has unlimited usage and only rental will be charged, that the complainant has suppressed these facts. Disconnection due to non-payment of dues is not the fault of the opposite parties. On 21/08/2005 complainant owes a total amount of Rs. 3,147.79/-. The complainant is legally bound to settle this due. To evade payment, complainant has approached this Forum with false and misleading stories. Complainant is not entitled to any relief. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation, If so, at what amount?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties and marked Exts. D1 & D2 series. In rebuttal 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit.

5. Points (i) & (ii): Admittedly, complainant had availed a telephone connection from the opposite parties under the “Plan 500”. It has been the case of the complainant that after availing connection from the opposite parties the said telephone was dead as the tower of the opposite parties was out of order and that he could not avail the services of the opposite parties for two days. It has also been the case of the complainant that he had voluntarily transferred to the “Plan 290”, that even after several months of transfer to the new plan, the bill issued to him was the same as that of the older one and the anomalies in the bill was not rectified by the opposite parties in spite of several attempts. It has also been the case of the complainant that from 19/02/2005 to 18/03/2005 he had availed an internet connection for a limited period of one month on monthly rent of Rs.650/-, but opposite party had issued him a bill for Rs.4,392/-, that on his request opposite parties had allowed him a discount of 20% and the remaining amount of Rs.3,515/- was remitted on 25/05/2005. It is further submitted by the complainant that his telephone connection was disconnected for a period from 21/04/2005 to 20/05/2005 while opposite parties had issued two new bills worth Rs. 855.82/- and Rs.1,467.74/- and that even after remittance of Rs.660/-, opposite parties purposely disconnected his telephone connection. It is submitted by opposite parties that the complainant had opted a scheme on 21/01/2004 which required the payment of Rs.500/- per month, that there was no defect in the tower, and his phone was working. It is also submitted by the opposite parties, that he has opted for a change in his plan from “Plan 500” to “Plan 290” from 19/02/2005 and that he had taken “290 Plan” for getting internet facilities. According to opposite parties, the said '290 plan' given the customer 3 options – Rs. 650/- monthly plan, Rs. 950/- monthly plan and Rs.1,500/- platinum plan, that if the customer opts for any of these optional plans, the customer can avail the internet facility but need not pay Rs. 290 monthly rental. It is further stated by opposite parties that complainant had used 1453 MB units of internet facility, that as per the complainant's plan, he was given 914 MB units free, the balance 539 units are charged at the rate of Rs.5/- per unit, that the total amount of 539 units at Rs.5/- per unit came to Rs. 2,695/-, the rental for the period from 19/02/2005 to 15/03/2005 came to Rs.580.36 (ie.he was in the option of Rs.650/- monthly charges), the rental for 4 days prior to 19/02/2005 came to Rs.31.07/-, the call charges for the period came to Rs. 499.20/-. The messages charges came to Rs.3/-. The R – connect usage charge came to Rs.197.75. The total of this was Rs. 4,397.67/-. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that as on 21/04/2005, complainant owed a total amount of Rs.516.88/-, that on 25/05/2006 he made a payment of Rs.3,515/- and on 3/6/2005 another payment of Rs.660/- was made and as on 3/6/2005 an amount of Rs.1,986.53/- was due from him. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 21/7/2005 for Rs.5,407/-. As per Ext.P1 the previous dues is Rs.3,311.86/- and current charges is Rs.2,094.33/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 21/6/2005 for Rs.5,312/-. Complainant did not furnish the prior bills nor did he furnish any document to show that he has got 20% discount from the opposite parties and opposite parties have directed him to remit Rs.3,515/-. It is the say of the opposite parties that telephone will be automatically disconnected whenever there is non-payment of dues. Opposite parties have averred the details of Reliance use and payment made by the complainant in their version. In his cross examination, when asked the complainant about the period during which the said phone was out of order, he has deposed that he could not remember it. Complainant has deposed further that the said period (20 days) was during the time of his son's marriage advertisement given in the newspaper. He has not furnished any material to prove that. Complainant has not furnished anything to show that he has moved application for 'plan change. His case is that even after several months of the transfer to new plan, the bill issued to him was the same as that of the old one. He has admitted that the billing period is within 15^th of every month. In his cross examination when asked: 'plan change ആയിട്ടില്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q) എനിക്ക് bill change ആയി ഇതുവരെ കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല.. 16/1/2005 മുതല്‍ 15/2/2005 വരെയുള്ള ബില്ലാണ് കാണിക്കുന്നത്. ഇതില്‍ pplan name 290 ആണെന്ന് പറയുന്നു? അതിനെപ്പറ്റി എനിക്ക്അറിയില്ല. .ബില്ല് കിട്ടിയിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്. (Ext. D1 series). It is pertinent to note that the billing period in Ext. D1 & D2 series is within 15^th of the relevant month', while the billing period in Exts. P1 to P4 is within 20^th of the relevant period. The change in the billing period signifies the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had opted for a change in his plan and hence from 19/2/2005 he was in the Rs.290/- data plan. It is the stand of the opposite parties that if the customer opts for any of the optional plans given by the said 290 data plan, he can avail the internet facility, but need not pay Rs. 290 monthly rental. According to opposite parties, complainant had used 1453 MB units of internet facility, that as per complainant's plan he was given 914 MB units free and the balance 539 units are charged at the rate of Rs.5/- per unit, which is reflected in the statement dated 16/2/2005 to 15/3/2005 furnished by the opposite parties. Complainant never denied the use of internet as specified by the opposite parties in their version, nor he furnished any other material to disprove the statement of the opposite parties nor he deposed convincing answer to the question put to him by the opposite parties in his cross examination. The initial onus of proving the case would rest on the complainant. The allegations levelled against opposite parties not proved by the complainant with cogent and coherent evidence. In view of the above and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not succeeded in establishing his complaint against opposite parties. Deficiency in service not proved. Complaint has no merits which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 283/2005

APPENDIX

I. Copmplainant's witness:

PW1 : S. Kavirajan

II. Complainant's Documents:

P1 : Photocopy of bill No. 260588676080 dated 21/7/2005 issued by the opposite party for Rs. 2,094.33/-.

P2 : “ No. 260588676080 dated 21/7/2005 issued by the opposite party for Rs. 2,094.33/-.

P3 : “ No.260552061671 dated 21/6/2005 issued by opposite party for Rs.1,356.38/-.

P4 : “ No.260552061671 dated 21/6/2005 issued by opposite party for Rs.1,356.38/-.

III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Photocopy of bill No.260383017001 dated 16/2/2005 issued by opposite party for Rs.504.69/-. (sl. Nos. 1 to 3)

D2 : “ No.260303194680 dated 16/12/2004 issued by the opposite party for Rs.553.98. ( sl. Nos.1 to 3.

PRESIDENT